Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The argument against this approach is that it's not always humans accessing web pages. And even if it is humans, sometimes they need computer assistance to interpret the content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_HTML



As the article says, this is equivalently achieved by naming div classes and IDs (or some other attribute like itemprop a la schema.org). Also I'd say a completely style-free HTML scheme with open-ended semantic tag names (XML) styled by CSS is equivalent. The point is HTML doesn't serve a useful styling purpose.


I don't have a strong opinion on whether browsers should provide default styling, as it's trivial to override (although many web pages do rely on it). I agree that HTML tag names don't serve a very useful styling purpose, but they provide a useful structural purpose that cannot be easily replaced by using open-ended tag names or classnames. Custom Elements (http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/) are in the process of being implemented, but I don't think that's an argument for throwing out the standard, structural elements that provide a common API for interpreting document structure.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: